On 7 Feb 2010, at 16:44, Lou Burnard wrote:
> According to the minutes of our last call, we were going to discuss the
> following items
> * 2811239: new element 'object'
> * 2811234: add @ref to 'material'
> * 2724997: Cater for audio/video facsimile
I agree, we are not worthy/ready to address these
>> * 2714682: permit <biblScope> as child or as sibling of <imprint>
> -- at present we allow either. This is confusing. Is it right?
at first sight, seems like a mistake being a child of imprint. can someone
see an example where its wrong to have biblScope as sibling?
>> * 2812634: @docStatus on <edition>
> * 2909766: made del and add dateable
> -- these both relate to use of TEI for born digital docs.
> not unreasonable stretches
yes please, its time to get off the fence!
>> * 2925031: @ident datatype on <valItem>
> -- what is the diff between data.code and data.enumerated
>I've got a lot of sympathy with this request, it bites me all the time.
but the proposed solution using <val> breaks backward
compatibility more than somewhat, surely? allowing
either @ident or <val> seems messy. I'm more inclined
to give <valItem> its local defintion of @ident
> * 2940860: add xml:space to att.global
> -- is this really necessary?
I'm willing to bet not, but I'd be interested to hear from Syd, for
I believe it was here who
--
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente